In Franz
Kafka’s parable “Before the Law,” a man from the country seeks entry into the
law but is told by the gatekeeper that he cannot be granted entry at that
particular moment. Depending on the reading given, the tale can be interpreted
in many different ways. My groups reading used Marxist criticism as the method
that gave the most convincing argument. The main reason my group chose this
approach as due to the clearly different social standings of the countryman and
the gatekeeper. One example was the appearance of the gatekeeper, in his with
his fur coat along with well defined facial features; the countryman based his
judgement on these factors that he should wait for the permission of the
gatekeeper before heading inside the law. There was a clear distinction of a
higher class than the countryman’s own through the mentioning of the gatekeeper’s
garb. Another example was when the gatekeeper mentions that should the man from
the country try to ignore his prohibition, that he was powerful and that there
were many others beside himself that were each more and more powerful. My group
thought that this was a clear reference to a socioeconomic hierarchy, in which
the country man was at the very bottom and that meant he was quite powerless in
face of the gatekeeper who was above him, along with many others in the rungs
overhead.
Another
type of reading that could apply to the parable is the psychological literary
criticism. The gates to the law are stated to be standing open, as always, and
the countryman himself thinks that the law should always be accessible for
everyone. However, the gatekeeper denies him access to the law. Within the countryman’s
mind, there is never the thought of just brazenly going through the gate; the
gatekeeper has never made any physical attempts to block the countryman, only
verbal. This may indicate that the only thing keeping the countryman access to
the law is his own mind. The countryman is set on getting the gatekeeper’s
approval that he spends his time waiting. This fixation drives him to the
border of his sanity as he even resorts to asking the fleas on the gatekeeper’s
fur coat to help persuade the gatekeeper. The repeated denial of his entry into
the law drives the countryman to madness as he keeps to his stubbornness of
seeking permission. When the countryman is on his deathbed and asks why there
was no one else who requested entry, the gatekeeper tells him that the gate was
for his use only. Even the last thing the gatekeeper says to the countryman
could be an allusion to the mental block of his own mind. The countryman always
had access to the law but the only thing keeping him from it was himself. The man
thought the law was anyone’s to use but he sought permission to gain entry to
it, making it seem that the law was not in fact for everyone when it was.
Word Count: 500
I think that you presented a great argument for both Marxist and Psychological criticism that was straight to the point and was easy to understand with the help of short summaries of the text. However, I think that you could have made your claims a little stronger by including textual evidence from the story. By doing so, it allows the reader to be further persuaded with reason. Besides that, I really did enjoy your post since you clearly explained how you gained a different insight through other people's perspective of the text.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think you did a great job explaining your viewpoints. I enjoyed reading about your interpretation on how the reading was either Marxist or Psychologically interpretable.
ReplyDeleteThe examples you included in the post were good examples. Providing a little more evidence or detail with these examples would help clarify why you belive your approaches apply to this reading.